Presidential Election Of 1896

Republicans Claim Obama-Biden Are More Nasty And Divisive Than In Any Presidential Campaign In History: Really?

The Republican Party is complaining, from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on down, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are more nasty and divisive than in any Presidential campaign in history! Really?

Obviously, the Republicans have no knowledge or sense of history!

The Election of 1800 was NOT nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1828 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1860 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1896 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1912 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1932 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1948 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1968 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1980 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1992 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2000 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2004 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2008 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

In fact, beyond these MORE divisive elections, EVERY Presidential election is nasty and divisive!

What IS different is that this round, the Democrats are striking back aggressively, which often in the past did not happen, to the same level as the Republicans, who are always nasty and divisive, whether favored to win the election or not!

But both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have stuck to attacks on the issues, not personalities, as both have always said that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are good family men, decent people, but are wrong on the issues.

On the other hand, the Republicans have launched personal attacks on both Obama and Biden, making insulting comments about them, particularly Obama, questioning whether he is an American, wondering about his birthplace, playing the race card, and showing him disrespect. And now, Biden is being attacked that he may have “lost it”, ridiculing mistakes he makes, which are few and far between as compared to Mitt Romney throughout his Presidential campaign!

So what it comes down to is that GOP does not like an aggressive opposition on the issues and contradictions they have as their record. The answer is tough on them, as this is the “big time”, and no longer will the Democrats allow themselves to be disrespected and ridiculed without a strong, aggressive response!

Mitt Romney: Least Government Experience Since 1912 Of Any Presidential Nominee, Except Wendell Willkie In 1940!

When one examines ALL of the Presidential nominees of the two major parties in the past century since 1912, one discovers that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the LEAST total government experience of any nominee, with the exception of the Republican nominee in 1940, businessman Wendell Willkie!

If we go back to 1896, we would need to add two nominees and one winner of the White House who had an equal amount of experience or less than Romney has–a total of four years and two years each. These are three time Democratic nominee (1896, 1900, 1908) William Jennings Bryan, who served as a Nebraska Congressman from 1890-1894; and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who served only two years as New Jersey Governor from 1910-1912, although serving as President of Princeton University for eight years previous to running for Governor.

When we talk about government experience, it includes time in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, the Governorship, state legislature, local office, service in administrative positions in government, and military experiences.

So only Wendell Willkie (no government experience) and Woodrow Wilson (two years of government experience) have less experience than Romney, with William Jennings Bryan matching Romney with four years in government.

Everyone else who ran as nominees for President had extensive experience in government, which is what one should expect for someone who wants the responsibility to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth!

This is a very different nation than it was in 1896, 1912, or even 1940!

Rick Santorum Reveals His True Self: Moral, Religious Zealot Out To Promote Social Controls!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has now thrown down the gauntlet, and only dimwitted Americans, or those who totally agree with him, could back him for President.

Santorum has now said he does not wish to deal with the issue of jobs, inflation, gasoline prices, and other economic issues!

Why? Because, according to him, the issue is morality, overcoming contraception, abortion, gay rights, and pornography!

Rick wants to control the social, private lives of all of us, and force Puritanical standards on all Americans, all through his devoutly Catholic religious beliefs, and with the backing of evangelical Christians who only care about Santorum’s “social agenda”!

Santorum comes the closest to being a theocrat of any modern Presidential candidate, with the closest to him being William Jennings Bryan, who ran as the Democratic nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908. But even Bryan, although a convinced evangelical Christian, advocated political, social and economic reforms that became the Progressive movement, ushering in ideas that became part of the agenda of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt over time.

Santorum has no such desires, as he wants government out of our lives, EXCEPT for social and privacy areas.

Santorum wants to shape all of us in the name of his brand of morality and religious fanaticism!

This makes Santorum a very dangerous man, a totalitarian minded person, who would interfere with the personal rights of those who disagree with him, putting the heavy hand of government on the people, even though he condemns big government in theory.

Santorum makes other Republicans cringe, as well as Democrats, and every effort must be made to prevent his nomination, as one can never be certain if times get difficult in the next seven months, that this moral censor might not be elected President in November!

Rick Santorum And Rural America Vs Mitt Romney And Suburban America

Tonight’s results in Michigan and Arizona preserved Mitt Romney’s lead, and edge in the battle for the Republican Presidential nomination.

But Romney did not knock Santorum out of the box, as the saying goes. Super Tuesday next week has the potential to assist Santorum in his battle promoting social conservatism.

And the new realization is that Santorum appeals to rural areas, which tend to wish for the past of America, when cities and suburbs were not so highly developed and influential.

Rick Santorum proved in the Michigan Primary that he could win the land and the rural areas, while Romney won the suburbs, although most urban areas are heavily Democratic.

It brings back memories of the struggle between urban and rural America that became most evident in the Presidential Election of 1896 (William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan) and the Presidential Election of 1928 (Al Smith vs, Herbert Hoover).

It is also the battle nationally, as the “heartland” is heavily rural and Republican, and the coastlines, highly urbanized and suburban areas, are Democratic.

This election is really a battle to move into the future, or to move backwards to the nostalgia of the past, and the future is the only sensible choice!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!